[TalkVirginia]

Originally Posted by War.Frog

I don't think arguing the copyright issue is something vb.org wants to do, or needs to do. The issue here is stagnant mods - they're clearly a problem and they're something I believe vb.org DOES need to try and get a handle on and discourage.

While the developers quite rightly want the popularity of their mod reflected in installed counts and ratings ("no support without clicking installed"), there is no incentive or disincentive whatsoever for a developer to indicate "Supported" on his/her new modification - even if they have no intention of ever supporting it.

That needs to change. While users are provided encouragement and incentives to mark a developer's modification "installed", developers are under no similar obligations to their users. I think developers who abandon their modifications or fail to provide support on "supported" modifications after X period of time should earn strikes against that mod, reflected in the mod and the developer's profile.

Almost like an eBay-style buyer-beware, if Developer A releases a three "supported" mods and then abandons his/her installed base, they earn strikes against their mods that provide fair warning to the community of the developer's reputation.

That way, even if Developer A releases a killer hack, people may be reluctant to download and install it in their production environments if that Developer's support/activity rating is in the tank.

Installed/downloaded counts simply don't tell that story - they only tell us how big the problem can be.

I love this idea!! War.Frog has a good point here.